IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY JOE LOCKHART, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-CV-292-MHT-CSC ) CHRIS WHITTLE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDTION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Bobby Lockhart, an inmate incarcerated at the Chilton County Jail, filed this Complaint on a form used by inmates for filing

actions. After reviewing the Complaint and finding deficiencies with this pleading, the undersigned determined that Plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies. On September 16, 2024, the undersigned entered an Order explaining the deficiencies in the Complaint and providing Plaintiff with specific instructions regarding filing an amended complaint. Doc. 11. Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that his failure to comply with the directives of the September 16 Order would result in a Recommendation this case be dismissed.

. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise complied with the Order of September 16, 2024, and the time for doing so has expired. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and

acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629–30 (1962). This authority empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”

at 630–31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”). “The

sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that by February 10, 2025, the parties may file written objections to this Recommendation. An objecting party must identify the specific portion

of the factual findings or legal conclusions to which the objection is made and must describe in detail the basis for the objection. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. The Recommendation if not a final order and therefore it is not appealable. Failure to file a written objection to this Recommendation shall bar a party from a

de novo determination by the District Court of any factual findings or legal conclusions contained herein and shall waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal any subsequent order that is based on factual findings and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th CIR. R. 3-1. See Resol. Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.,

, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson,

(11th Cir. 1989).

Done, this 27th day of January 2025.

/s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE